Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
At the time your posts were addictive but I had to send a message!  |
I'll take that as a compliment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
What Mike Duffy stated was factually correct. The refugee debate? I actually did not argue that the treaty allowed nation jumping. In fact I dismissed that one as a red herring because I agreed with you. Maybe if I just said that I could have saved a big mess.
I would challenge this since Fraser quoted experts in the very fields of psychology (Rushton) which includes crime and IQ. 'Argumentum ad verecundium' is not always a fallacy if a qualified third source is quoted in one's argument.
|
Regarding the refugees, I guess we have different ideas on how the international community should manage them. I've given my reasons why I feel allowing nation-skipping is a sound humanitarian policy.
Secondly, quoting Rushton is akin to quoting Michael Moore. A lot of his academic peers don't view him seriously, and it seems most of his supporters are grantees of the Pioneer Fund, over which he presides. His findings, like Michael Moores, are highly disputed, and subject to ridicule, such as this by his evol. psych. peer Barash:
Quote:
|
...by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit
|
And that's the tip of the iceberg.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
Now where one may get Fraser on a long shot is on the 'Appeal to Authority' because his sources are disputed thought the IQ scores or not which is the long shot problem but my interest in Fraser is his being able to present a non-violent view without sanction.
|
Has he been sanctioned yet? He refused to apologise to the local Sudanese as the HRC suggested, yet has kept his job (despite fucking up), got to broadcast his personal views nationally through a number of media channels, and is yet to face any charges or overt punishment whatsoever.I'm starting to think he probably never will.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
His claims were correct because they were factually true from what I could tell not because you could not prove them wrong.
|
You or Duffy believing them, or me failing to disprove them beyond all doubt, doesn't move them beyond the speculative. Fraser got himself in a pickle, whilst handing the uni VC a get-out-of-jail-free pass, by fucking up. I put a lot of light on the situation either you had ignored or glossed over, and it showed Duffy up for what he is, a tabloid salesman in a cheap suit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
I was appealing to 'tradition?' I was merely commenting on historical facts.
|
It is a fact that the Anzacs fought prior to Australia becoming multicultural, but not necessarily in the belief it would remain so, or that it should. I could use the same flawed logic to claim the Anzacs fought for an Australia free of pop music, bubble-gum and topless beaches.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
Even though this is true...
1) I did not dismiss any credible arguments based on this...
2) You introduced an opinion on why you felt Australians should pay for the upkeep of refugees Jerry.
Once that debate turned into an exchange of opinions and moral positions, I felt no need to avoid introducing such a point.
|
Whatever, it was completely irrelevent to the debate. I don't dismiss your opinions on the grounds you lack citizenship.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
However, you are correct! I do resort to attacks myself! Hell I just told Patrick that he is a nutcase! Hmmmm....I suppose I should change my ways of debating! Maybe time for a new way of thinking. I cannot jump on others for ad hominem if I call other posters nutcases. Seriously effects the credibility!
|
Calling the Rev a nutcase is an understatement, I personally would have used a much harsher expression. There are times when even ad hominems have a worthy purpose.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
I believe the term is forecasting based on a pattern? Maybe not etched in stone but it happens.
|
150 years? I'd liken it more to astrology.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
My claims of red herring arguments were proper Jerry...though on second thought maybe I should have engaged you more then I did on those things instead of going in circles.
Maybe you have a point. Maybe my code of fallacy is so complex and even self-serving that I should disregard it and merely debate the issues?
Yes, lets do that! No more fallacy, no more belittling others and complete politeness. Maybe you could make this offer to Daisym for me by PM?
I will change my entire system...
|
I would suggest an adjustment, not an overhaul. Complete politeness is for choir-boys whereas taking-the-piss can be fun, gives the forum some much needed colour, especialy when dealing with nutcases like Paddy. I just hope you come to debate the issues a little more liberally, and without resorting to the fallacy claims so often. If so I'll PM Daisym and tell her you're missing the love.
That actually bothered me because I like to think I am somewhat bright and putting me in that idiots category did offend me.[/quote]
Hence the apology, I hope you accept it.